Answer:
I think it's the second one
The correct answer is no.
Alisha was under no obligation to help Timmy, <em>there is no such thing like</em> <em>duty to rescue.</em> There is no legal requirement in the United States to help and rescue someone who is in danger. Even in extreme situation, when a person sees a person falling into a river for example, the witness of the situation is no obliged to assist with help.
There are some cases with some important exceptions: if the defendant created the peril he is obliged to come to the plaintiff's aid, if the defendant started to rescue the plaintiff, he must continue to do so, if the defendant is in a special relationship with the plaintiff ( teacher-student, worker-employer), he is under duty to rescue him.
Alisha was under no duty to inform Timmy's parents of the danger facing him <em>but she should have done it nevertheless.</em> She should at least have phoned them if she didn't have the time to stop by. She knew the boy well and she should have cared more. The need to help the boy should have come from her moral guidance and not as a sense of duty to be performed.
There was alot of competion ... the soviet union actually ended up dropping out of the cold war because america had out spent them...they were trying to see how much better each other was in technological advances
Answer:
As a result of population growth in Nepal, there are many adverse effects raising in Nepal. There are many adverse effects of population growth. Some of the serious problems may arise in the future. We have enlisted some of the problems due to high population growth in Nepal. 1.
Hope this helps!
